"What do you call the two sides?" Topic

"Americans" and "British" always seemed like it doesn't quite fit the nature of the conflict.

I've seen some rules use "Loyalist" and "Patriot" which seems to do honour to both sides.

What say you?

Continentals and Redcoats

I am hoping the term "Redcoats" doesn't trigger anyone….

British & Patriots

Loyalists and Traitors

British and Loyalists versus Patriots, generally. But when writing battle reports and 'speaking' from the British side, I refer to the opposition as 'rebels'. When speaking from the Patriot side I refer to the colonial opposition as 'Tories'.

Us vs Them.

Factions of course! ;-)

--
Martin Stephenson
The Waving Flag | Twitter | eBay

Us vs Them.

For AWI? Naw,that can't be right:

youtu.be/KPw4U_IhWV4

Them and us!

Good Guys and Bad Guys. Probably Brits and Americans, or Brits and Continentals.

I've seen Brit writers use "Redcoats" so I think that's pretty widely considered.

I always associated it with the Peninsular war but maybe that's from being a dang foreigner.

Tax dodgers and revenue men.

I've always seen Loyalist and Patriot.

Whigs and Tories or Crown forces and Rebels.

British and American. My opinion of the "loyalists" I won't express in a wargaming forum, but the polite word for such people is "Quisling."

Left and right? Reds and blues? People who enjoy tea and those that don't? The special relationship and the back of the queue? I tend to use His Majesty's Loyal forces and the rebellious scum, but then its only wargaming isn't it?

Assuming I am not in an environment where there already seems to be a consensus I tend to use British and Americans primarily, with British and rebels as my first alternate.

Wascally Webels & Labsters

Revolutionaries and Red Coats

British and Rebels.

British and American

"

American vs British. Everyone understands it around here and helps to keep the things simple.

My opinion of the "loyalists" I won't express in a wargaming forum, but the polite word for such people is "Quisling."

A bit unfair. Loyalists were as patriots as any of the rebels. USA didn't exist before the war, and only victory in war gave her the right to exist as a nation. Before and for the duration? Well, it was just a possibility and anyone had the right to contest it without being labeled as a traitor against the USA.

Keep it nice guys :-)

I'm Danish so as far as I am concerned, you're all crazy anglo's :)

Thank you, Weasel, for keeping it in perspective.

I think Good Guys and Bad Guys works

After all, you can decide who is which on your own

The only issue with British versus Americans is that a good hunk of the British forces weren't actually British – being loyalists (i.e. Americans) or German

Rebels and King's Men. I consider these to be the most objective terms. Whatever your ultimate viewpoint, until the treaty which officially ended the war and in which Great Britain formally recognized the United States, rebels is what they were. Look the word up in a dictionary before disputing it.

a good hunk of the British forces weren't actually British

Not to mention American deserters.

BTW, Did anyone actually say 'Redcoats' at the time?

We and They

YouTube link

His Majesty's Forces v ungrateful bastards – abbreviated to British v American.

(I'm generally a Whig but when it comes to the American War of Independence I seem to be a bit of a Tory).

The question on whether "redcoat" was used at the time is a really good one.

Patriots, Loyalists, British, French, Spanish, and Germans. Native Americans are either patriots or Loyalists.

Opressors and opressed!

Loyal Crown forces VS the French and their rebel minions! :)

Forces of the Crown vs Rebels (& French, etc)

King George's men and Damned Rebels. Think that has the right period flavour.

Hey, Weasel, you can call who you want an Anglo – but don't call be no pansy Anglo, I'm a freakin' Saxon! : )

Rebels and Redcoats. Simple and clear.

Crown and Rebels, here.

Americans and British for the most part.

Christopher

Good Guys and Bad Guys.
Which totally depends on which side I'm playing.
Since I paint, supply and play both sides, that's a rather fluid definition.

Well played Early Morning Writer :-)
I hear the 19th century is going to be good to you then :)

Crown forces and Congressional forces are the most accurate, if somewhat clumsy way of describing them. Even a year into the war, the latter were still claiming their rights as "Englishmen" (ironically, many in England were referring to the rebellion as a "Mac-ocracy" because of the numbers of Ulster Irish involved – overwhelmingly Protestants it should be said). If we're being picky, the term "patriot" (as in someone fighting for his country) arguably belongs to the native tribes, almost all of whom fought for the Crown.

My opinion of the "loyalists" I won't express in a wargaming forum, but the polite word for such people is "Quisling."

Aside from the huge dose of 20:20 hindsight required in that definition, it might interest you to know that just over 40% of American AWI re-enactors portray Crown forces. In fact, a good deal of what we know about the Crown forces of this period, even the Regulars, has come from research by the likes of Don Hagist, Will Tatum, Roy Najecki, Jay Callaham, Christian Cameron, and other "Quislings" many of whom have also served in the US armed forces.

Crown Forces and Rebels.

The Loyalist perspective was as valid as any other at the time. That's why it was very much a civil war.

Quisling belongs to a different era.

Crown vs. American/French.

British and Americans

The Loyalist would think of themselves as British.

Them's what takes orders and them's what argues about 'em – and then follows 'em, some 'o the time.

The empire and the colonials.